The magazine concluded that the Pirate Party, "is the first left-wing party to have a considerable number of intellectuals not for, but against it."

The tempest in a torrent seems to have begun about a month ago, after Sven Regener, a Berlin-based musician and author, lamented the Pirates’ politics on Bavarian public radio. Others have stepped up to agree with his sentiment, including "film director Doris Dörrie, publisher Carl Hanser Verlag's literary director and author Michael Krüger and author Julia Franck."

Take the case of Hans Magnus Enzensberger, an award-winning 82-year-old essayist, poet, and author who has been at the forefront of many German political movements in recent decades.

"Political? No, politically there's nothing there," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel. "And certainly nothing revolutionary. It's actually surprisingly bourgeois. Like our grandparents, who were happy when they could get something for free."

Enzenberger, though, wasn’t done. "I wonder why they don't go the bakery and say that they'd rather not pay," he added. "Why does it have to be against us, the authors?"

Of course, Pirates would argue that they’re not against paying for stuff—and that paying for bread, a non-digital good, is very different than paying for an MP3. In fact, Peter Sunde, one of the founders of The Pirate Bay, also created Flattr, a startup that makes it easier for people to financially support websites they like.

As an adjoining interview in the same magazine reveals, there seems to be a great disconnect between the established media and music culture, and the young digerati.

"We derive our demands from the technical realities of the Net," said Christopher Lauer, a Pirate member of the Berlin state parliament. "For us they are like laws of nature. That's why you and many other people often have difficulty understanding us."

161 Reader Comments

Shock and awe, the old guard don't get the new rules. Like it or not, we're moving to a post-demand economy, and the 20th century (note, I did not use "traditional", as it isn't) method of paying for music is no longer viable in an era where the limits of supply don't apply.

Yeah, how're those intellectuals doing for ya right now, Germany? Not only do they seem to be continuing to perpetrate the SCAM that is the European Union, but they evidently don't understand what the Pirate Party is about. I guess when you have lobbying interests in your ear all the time, beating the word PIRACY into your head, you might get confused, even if you're a so-called 'intellectual'.

I'll never understand the mentality of people who think they're owed free stuff simply because it's in digital form and there is no physical production limitation. The people who created it have the say in how it gets sold, and for how much, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're entitled to getting it for free.

The real problem of the Pirate Party is not their policy (which can be debated one way or the other, and it's good that said debate is happening), it's that it's very much a single-issue organization that nobody would ever vote for if they don't care exclusively for said single issue. That's just not sustainable in the long run, and politics is very much about long runs in Germany, especially if you actually want to change anything at all.

Mind you, the German Greens started as a pretty naive single-issue party as well, but over time managed to become a mainstream party with a wide range of policies about everything, which carried them to co-government before. The question is whether the Pirates can ever branch out that much successfully (I doubt it).

the problem with this article and similar is that many of us are NOT against copyright itself, but wish it to be reasonable. as it is now, even the European version is completely nuts. 30 years max should be the limit. and personally I would like it to be 14 years with an option of a further 14 that you have to apply for at the end of the first 14. the "ownership" should only be with the original person, license can be given. etc etc etc. Especially with new technology that literally blurs to nothingness the difference between original and copy of a piece of art AND the fact that said copy can be made at nearly no cost by the billions, we need to revise how we think about those copy's. There are not just two sides, the side of the consumer that wants things for free and the side of the producer that wants absolute complete control without regards of where said producer got the idea for the production. There is also the side of the community at large that provided the original context for which the producer AND the consumer see that piece of art. (art in this context means any original creation). is an example of a third side. There are in fact more than just those three.

The spiegel.de article is nothing but its usual lowest-common-denominator click-baiting; compared to the print issue, most of the content on the spegel.de site is low-brow nonsense. Let's just pick two of the many issues: since when does "artist" automatically mean "intellectual", and since when are the voices of five or six "intellectuals" representative for all the "intellectuals" of a country with a population of 90 million?

The entire premise of the article referenced here is nothing short of preposterous.

And for those familiar with Germany's cultural scene ... Doris Dörrie an intellectual? Give me a fucking break.

German here.What self-described intellectuals think about the PP is completely irrelevant.Ever since the PP won 9 percent of the votes during the Berlin election the rest of the parties and the "old guard" especially in the media industry are scared shitless.Ever since they keep repeating the same semitruth and lies about PP being against paying artists, having no real program besides free Warez, free rides in Buses and free drugs.It seems however that the population is looking behind this charade as the latest polls place them above the Liberals, the green party and sometims even the leftists, all three well established parties with up to 70 years of history.

I'll never understand the mentality of people who think they're owed free stuff simply because it's in digital form and there is no physical production limitation. The people who created it have the say in how it gets sold, and for how much, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're entitled to getting it for free.

I'll never understand people who think that businesses are entitled to continued consumer acceptance of their business model even in the face of huge social and technical change. I'm even more mystified by purported supporters of the "free market" who want government to stifle social and technical advance to ensure profits for businesses that refuse to adapt.

I'm not saying you fall into either camp, just that your comments are reminiscent of those schools of thought: outrage at consumer "entitlement" combined with implicit acceptance of business entitlement.

The real problem of the Pirate Party is not their policy (which can be debated one way or the other, and it's good that said debate is happening), it's that it's very much a single-issue organization that nobody would ever vote for if they don't care exclusively for said single issue. That's just not sustainable in the long run, and politics is very much about long runs in Germany, especially if you actually want to change anything at all.

This, right here, hits the nail on the head. Without expanding into other issues, they'll never be perceived as anything but "those folks who want free music."

I'll never understand the mentality of people who think they're owed free stuff simply because it's in digital form and there is no physical production limitation. The people who created it have the say in how it gets sold, and for how much, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're entitled to getting it for free.

There's a difference between "free" and "at a price that doesn't artificially inflate to account for non-existing distribution costs." The problem that is affecting the media industry is that they put most of their pricing structure into marketing the artificial idea of scarcity. The very existence of a label was to address the need to plug media into distribution channels, a process that used to involve placement deals with box-box retailers, store displays, cover art, printing costs, shipping costs, and the like. Certainly some of that still exists with media (more than most people would realize), however, the problem was that the original pricing model was essentially a well-crafted lie to justify paying more people than needed to be paid. When the mp3 came out (and mp4), the curtain was torn down. When we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media than its first-sale equivalent physical copy, we realized the scarcity distribution model was a lie, that all those costs the industry touted as justifying were in fact not justified at all.

This is exactly what's happening to the movie industry and e-book industry. The music industry settled out with an affordable and relatively reasonable pricing model for DRM-free music designed to be as portable as the person needed it to be. Movie publishers are still trying to lock down content at $20+ for "licensing" or $4 for 24-hour rental (4x Redbox). Offer me a $2 rental for 48 hours or a $10 DRM-free digital copy and Torrenting will suddenly seem a whole lot less convenient. Same with e-books -- I discovered I could purchase The Hunger Games for my Kindle at $8, or I could pick up a paper copy at Target for $7.49. Why on earth would I pay more for less? This isn't about the digital world creating some new economy (it isn't. The old rules still apply), but about the digital world exposing a market inefficiency and providing an alternative to paying for market inefficiency, a la a grey market that does no direct monetary harm through theft The problem is very easily fixable by changing the pricing structure of content to more accurately reflect the value of the content instead of the "scarcity" of the content. I believe you'll find the same will be true with the 3d printing industry, should we ever launch ourselves into the science fiction-y future of printing Prada handbags and Mercedes-Benz components.

"We derive our demands from the technical realities of the Net," said Christopher Lauer, a Pirate member of the Berlin state parliament. "For us they are like laws of nature."

{Yoda}And that is why you fail.{/yoda}

How do they fail? If fail is epic success for you (they went from almost 0 to 13% - third strongest party - in a matter of weeks), yeah then youre right.

See above. They're a single-issue party without enough influence to actually change anything. The entire "laws of nature" comment cements that they don't get ephemeral nature of the 'net.

Sure, they get an initial boost from people who like their single-issue (like how "legalize marijuana" candidates in America get a group of young folks voting for them on that alone). But the rest of the population, who doesn't give a fig, aren't going along with it. They're much more concerned with politicians who tackle multiple issues they care about.

"We derive our demands from the technical realities of the Net," said Christopher Lauer, a Pirate member of the Berlin state parliament. "For us they are like laws of nature."

{Yoda}And that is why you fail.{/yoda}

How do they fail? If fail is epic success for you (they went from almost 0 to 13% - third strongest party - in a matter of weeks), yeah then youre right.

See above. They're a single-issue party without enough influence to actually change anything. The entire "laws of nature" comment cements that they don't get ephemeral nature of the 'net.

Sure, they get an initial boost from people who like their single-issue (like how "legalize marijuana" candidates in America get a group of young folks voting for them on that alone). But the rest of the population, who doesn't give a fig, aren't going along with it. They're much more concerned with politicians who tackle multiple issues they care about.

It very obvious you dont know much about them, because all you said is simply untrue.

See above. They're a single-issue party without enough influence to actually change anything. The entire "laws of nature" comment cements that they don't get ephemeral nature of the 'net.

Sure, they get an initial boost from people who like their single-issue (like how "legalize marijuana" candidates in America get a group of young folks voting for them on that alone). But the rest of the population, who doesn't give a fig, aren't going along with it. They're much more concerned with politicians who tackle multiple issues they care about.

You do realize that any party that gets more then 5% in votes has seats in the parliament and potentially can be part of the government if they manage to form an alliance with other parties to gain > 50% of all seats? And that's ignoring the fact that other parties pick up those issues simply because they want to have those percentages for themself.

Most people that are against big content don't have a problem with paying for content... they just have a problem with restrictions on what they do with that content, and a problem with middlemen getting the biggest chunk of change.

How much does an author see from a hardcover book? How much does the store see? Now tell me how much does the publisher see?

Without expanding into other issues, they'll never be perceived as anything but "those folks who want free music."

The one-issue perception is certainly a problem, but the flip side is that they are also increasingly seen as one of the few parties who aren't itching to install the RIAA/MPAA types to supreme dictatorship over all internet users and websites.

The internet is commonplace enough now, and has been for long enough, that a sizeable percentage of the voting populace actually care about it to some degree. Most politicians don't seem to grasp this. ACTA in particular will be pushing people into the arms of the pirate party. Expect their numbers to continue rising until the "mainstream" parties finally get a clue.

When the mp3 came out (and mp4), the curtain was torn down. When we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media than its first-sale equivalent physical copy, we realized the scarcity distribution model was a lie, that all those costs the industry touted as justifying were in fact not justified at all.

This ignores some of the actual history. "we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media..." because of the rampant piracy of MP3s that was going on. DRM was a reaction to people passing MP3s around like they were candy.

The media companies haven't been the most reasonable of actors, but everything they've done has been in reaction to illegal things people have been doing.

And neither does tech savvy = intelligent. If anything, both camps are increasingly in a race to the bottom as far as brains are concerned.

The problem with movements like the Pirate Party is that it's gone, in very short time, from a movement concerned about intellectual property protection reform and rights of individuals online to an entitlement movement - it's been less about thwarting abuses of the legal system to secure economic rents and more about glorifying the widespread non-monetary distribution of intellectual property.

When the mp3 came out (and mp4), the curtain was torn down. When we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media than its first-sale equivalent physical copy, we realized the scarcity distribution model was a lie, that all those costs the industry touted as justifying were in fact not justified at all.

This ignores some of the actual history. "we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media..." because of the rampant piracy of MP3s that was going on. DRM was a reaction to people passing MP3s around like they were candy.

The media companies haven't been the most reasonable of actors, but everything they've done has been in reaction to illegal things people have been doing.

Wrong, your observation would be valid if and only if there existed a DRM-free digital musical offer prior to Napster et al...

Piracy created the market thanks to people ripping their CDs because there was zero paying option, with or without DRM at that point.DRM existed only because in the light of Napster's success, the distributors feared that without them it would be even worse, as people could just skip the ripping step of the process... it proved a nearly-suicidal move and took them a decade to come to their senses.Had they started with a DRM-free offer, the picture would have been quite different IMHO.The problem is they panicked and favored securing their revenue streams rather than responding to the market needs.

When the mp3 came out (and mp4), the curtain was torn down. When we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media than its first-sale equivalent physical copy, we realized the scarcity distribution model was a lie, that all those costs the industry touted as justifying were in fact not justified at all.

This ignores some of the actual history. "we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media..." because of the rampant piracy of MP3s that was going on. DRM was a reaction to people passing MP3s around like they were candy.

The media companies haven't been the most reasonable of actors, but everything they've done has been in reaction to illegal things people have been doing.

Wrong, your observation would be valid if and only if there existed a DRM-free digital musical offer prior to Napster et al...

Piracy created the market thanks to people ripping their CDs because there was zero paying option, with or without DRM at that point.DRM existed only because in the light of Napster's success, the distributors feared that without them it would be even worse, as people could just skip the ripping step of the process... it proved a nearly-suicidal move and took them a decade to come to their senses.Had they started with a DRM-free offer, the picture would have been quite different IMHO.The problem is they panicked and favored securing their revenue streams rather than responding to the market needs.

"people could just skip the ripping step"? What are you talking about? Napster was people skipping the ripping step. That was the whole point of the application: people handing one-another ripped music. This wasn't some vague possibility that they were concerned about; it was reality.

Also, the first act by media companies wasn't DRM; it was shutting Napster down.

But in any case, it was the pirates that started it; if there hadn't been the rash of infringement, the media companies wouldn't have tried their DRM stuff.

But in any case, it was the pirates that started it; if there hadn't been the rash of infringement, the media companies wouldn't have tried their DRM stuff.

Non-sequitor. It may be that media companies responded to infringement with DRM, but that doesn't mean it was their only possible response or best response. In fact, it was an incredibly short-sighted attempt to address the symptoms of exogenous change in lieu of understanding and adapting to that change.

To exaggerate, this is like saying "if that guy hadn't cut me off on the freeway, I wouldn't have shot my mother." It may technically be true, if I'm irrational and suffer from road rage, but in no way does the initial action inevitably lead to my response.

When the mp3 came out (and mp4), the curtain was torn down. When we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media than its first-sale equivalent physical copy, we realized the scarcity distribution model was a lie, that all those costs the industry touted as justifying were in fact not justified at all.

This ignores some of the actual history. "we were asked to pay MORE for DRM-laden digital media..." because of the rampant piracy of MP3s that was going on. DRM was a reaction to people passing MP3s around like they were candy.

The media companies haven't been the most reasonable of actors, but everything they've done has been in reaction to illegal things people have been doing.

Wrong, your observation would be valid if and only if there existed a DRM-free digital musical offer prior to Napster et al...

Piracy created the market thanks to people ripping their CDs because there was zero paying option, with or without DRM at that point.DRM existed only because in the light of Napster's success, the distributors feared that without them it would be even worse, as people could just skip the ripping step of the process... it proved a nearly-suicidal move and took them a decade to come to their senses.Had they started with a DRM-free offer, the picture would have been quite different IMHO.The problem is they panicked and favored securing their revenue streams rather than responding to the market needs.

"people could just skip the ripping step"? What are you talking about? Napster was people skipping the ripping step. That was the whole point of the application: people handing one-another ripped music. This wasn't some vague possibility that they were concerned about; it was reality.

Also, the first act by media companies wasn't DRM; it was shutting Napster down.

But in any case, it was the pirates that started it; if there hadn't been the rash of infringement, the media companies wouldn't have tried their DRM stuff.

The pirates did start the whole market for digital music, that is the point.... and the fact you so conveniently ignore.

Music piracy spread like a wildfire because it existed in a vacuum, there were no other way to get digital music beside buying a physical copy and ripping it, provided your local store had a copy of the music you wanted.

Had the industry answered to the market earlier and more efficiently, they wouldn't have had to fight such an uphill struggle and wouldn't have generated such hostility toward them.

If Napster et al hadn't been there, we'd still be mostly using CDs, digital would be a minority offer, overpriced, by the album, and DRM-ladden.It's piracy which, by offering an alternative to consumers, forced labels to be competitive and give consumers what they want rather than what the labels wanted.

In fact, the explanation you offer paints content distributors as even more incompetent than I do.

In my opinion, they misread the market and took the wrong steps.In yours, their primary motivation was to kill the market altogether.

That's what I meant... by offering digital distribution services without DRM they feared to make the problem even worse and that's why they had to have DRM on both CDs and MP3s, they needed to restrict the number of sources.

30 years max should be the limit. and personally I would like it to be 14 years with an option of a further 14 that you have to apply for at the end of the first 14.

Nope. Allowing the application for extension to occur near the end of term allows to selectively extend successful franchises. That is if it had a cost; if the extension were free then they'd just extend everything and make the effective copyright term 28 years (which is far too long IMHO).

12 years with a single extension of 10 years at significant cost (I'd say 15% of the production cost of the work). That would make it so that the copyright holder would have to be confident in not only the ability of a work to perform in the present but also in 12 years.

But in any case, it was the pirates that started it; if there hadn't been the rash of infringement, the media companies wouldn't have tried their DRM stuff.

Right... they wouldn't have tried to implement a scheme to charge you for every time you play a song, they wouldn't have tried to force you rebuying your music every time you want to play it on a different player, they wouldn't have tried to kill the any chance of reselling. Because they're an honest bunch and wouldn't likely looking for new income schemes. I'm sorry but if you seriously think they would have ignored that chance you're extremly naive. The only reason we don't have DRM on MP3 anymore is due to piracy and their inability to compete with DRM schemes, not the other way around. They would have gone DRM just like the DVD industry uses region locks - because they can.

I am... I guarantee you that if the majors had their say, without any other force to push the market toward digital distribution, they'd still be pushing CD as the main vector.Look at the negotiations with digital platforms... Look at the rhetoric about the loss of employment at CD pressing plants, it's all there, even now they are still thinking of CD as the primary vector for distributing music, just imagine what it would be if their hand had not been forced.

Look at the video industry, they are also clinging to physical media and resisting the move toward an all digital channel every step of the way.And they can because the logistics of video piracy are very different from audio piracy, meaning they have a more easily defended market than music ever had.

I'd could just be "grassroots artists", but somehow I feel a more cynical stance could be taken.

Their articles can be written by literally anybody, it's not rare to see articles which state the opposite of something that was posted earlier on spiegel. Currently the press is trying to get a new copyright laws passed, which would force Google to pay for Google News and anybody else that uses public text snippets in what could be considered business use (e.g. a blog with ads or even if you read financial news at work). The overwhelming amount of comments against the pirate party are not from artists or intellectuals, but media company execs or other people involved in reselling not creating IP. There was recently a campaign in Handelsblatt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handelsblatt) which translates to 'my head is mine' in which they quoted 100 "creatives" against presumed PP statements (PP doesn't even want to get rid of copyright) of which 2/3 weren't doing any creative work...